SC Grants Regular Bail to Future Maker Promoters in Rs. 57 Cr GST Case:

The Supreme Court on 18 May granted regular bail to the promoters of M/s. Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd. in a case involving alleged offences under the Central Excise Act, Finance Act, 1994 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while directing that the attached movable and immovable assets of the company and related persons shall continue to remain frozen. A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that no useful purpose would be served by continued custody of the petitioners in the tax liability proceedings.

“No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioners in custody so far as this case is concerned.”

Also Read

ITAT Deletes Rs 7.62 Lakh Addition, Rules Section 56(2)(x) Not Applicable for AY 2017-18

The petitioners, Radhey Shyam and another, had approached the Supreme Court seeking regular bail in connection with Complaint No. CIS No. COMA/77/2024 titled “Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Hisar v. M/s. Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.” The allegations pertained to offences under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Sections 83, 89, 89(4) and 89(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017.

As per the allegations, petitioner No.1 was the Managing Director and petitioner No.2 was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd., which operated a multilevel direct marketing business dealing in agricultural products, health products and textiles through direct sellers. The case involved allegations that GST returns from March 2018 onwards were not filed and statutory tax liabilities were avoided, resulting in an assessment order of Rs. 54.77 crore for the period from October 2016 to June 2017.

The Supreme Court noted that the company had already paid approximately Rs. 36 crore towards the tax liability. The Court also took note of the fact that petitioner No.1 had remained in custody in the predicate offences for more than four and a half years and for over one month in the present proceedings before being granted bail earlier by the Court. Petitioner No.2 had remained in custody for about three years and nine months in the predicate offence and for six months in the present proceedings. The court pointed out taht

“Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, however, without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant petition is disposed of and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail.”

While granting bail, the Court clarified that the movable and immovable assets, including bank accounts of the petitioners’ company, family members and associated persons, would continue to remain attached. It further directed that no court shall pass any order for de-freezing such accounts without prior permission of the Supreme Court, except where the assets are required to be utilised for reimbursement of verified claims of investors or customers.

Thus, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of and the petitioners were directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.